Thailand Aims To Seize All Thaksin Fortune

[elcent]

there was a court injunction to clear the way to the school. bingo

how can you say that PAD did not forcefully control the 2 control towers? what's your agenda, proof? It was discussed worldwide. You can even ask foreign airlines who got stuck with their planes at the airport. Low of memory? Maybe an upgrade would help, lol

There are also rules within a democracy and of how to conduct a protest.

Sure you know more than I do in detail, and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Your argumentation can't stand in front of any court. I am fully aware by the naive arguments of the PAD to justify their crime.

[ballpoint]

I'm sorry, but your posts just don't make any sense. You're accusing Thaksin of vote buying. Are you forgetting that the Democrats have been convicted of vote buying as well during the election? Yes, look up the election results. On top, the Democrats are now accused of receiving hundreds of millions of Baht in illegal "donations" and their party may be dissolved by the EC. Not aware of it? Read the front page of Bangkok Post or any big Thai newspaper.

You're accusing Thaksin of "extra-judical killing" aka. the killings of drug dealers. How much worse is that from Abhisit instructing the military to pull the Rohingya boat people hundreds of miles into the open ocean without food and water, leaving them to die. And what about the refugees being deported to Myanmar and Laos, where they face torture and risks of being killed, according to the UN human rights watch? Those are innocent people. Not drug dealers. But you're too busy defending drug dealers. Whatever you're eating, stop it and maybe your posts will make more sense.

And you keep bringing up Seh Daeng. You're right, he's a nut. I already wrote that before, which I'm sure you know since you're following my posts so closely. One idiot doesn't mean that the whole country is stupid.

When you have plausible answers to the above issues, feel free to share them. Because all I see you doing is ranting away against Thaksin when there are much worse things happening in Thailand that you don't seem to give a poop about.

Another feeble offtopic attempt to cast stones at the PM, but, since you brought it up:

The Rohingya incident occurred about a month into the Abhisit government's term, and was the direct result of one of the few policies to be enacted by the Samak government. Remember him? PPP? Thaksin's man? From the Rohingya themselves:

"We, the Rohingya League for Democracy (Burma), RLDB strongly condemn to Mr. Samak Sundaravej, the Thai Prime Minister on his recently statement against Burmese democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Indeed Samak is the most narrow minded and disqualified the leader in the world who frequently releases meaningless statements in the favor of Burmese Nazism SPDC."

"Once in April this year, Mr. Samak also inhumanely murmured about Rohingyas in Thailand as they will be sent to a deserted island."

http://www.rldb.org/rldb/index.php?option=...43&Itemid=1

More?

"But last March the then prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, announced a crackdown on the Rohingya."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/2...-burma-malaysia

The Karen refugee situation is another dire one, and I fully agree with this statement from the HRW:

"(New York) - Thai security forces should immediately stop forcing Karen refugees and asylum seekers to return to Burma from refugee camps in Thailand, Human Rights Watch said today." The problem, for your argument, is that this was said on July 18^th 2008, when the PPP were in charge.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/07/17/thai...-refugees-burma

The Hmong case is another that's not as simple as you appear to make it:

"We urge the Thai government and Prime Minister Samak to immediately halt the forced repatriation of the over 8,000 Lao and Hmong refugees at Ban Huay Nam Khao and Nong Khai Detention center so that they can be resettled in third countries that have agreed to grant them asylum as political refugees," stated Vaughn Vang, Executive Director of the Lao Human Rights Council".

http://www.cppa-dc.org/id27.html

Or, how about

"On February 27, 2008, Thai Third Army attack dogs were reportedly ordered by Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to maul a group of Hmong refugees prior to their forced repatriation..."

http://myamarnews.blogspot.com/2008/03/sam...g-refugees.html

These incidents are all highly regrettable, to put it mildly, whoever carried them out. It's regrettable, too, that someone would gleefully bring them up on here, in ignorance and with no other research than heresay, purely in order to score political points. I also note your "Those are innocent people. Not drug dealers" statement. Since the assumption of innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental part of a fully working democracy, one wonders at your true democratic intentions.

Now, is it too much to ask you and your fellow red supporters to provide similar quotes and links to the oft repeated posts you bring up in every thread? Or, how about answering some of our questions for a change? It would help us to understand what it is your trying to say.

Edited February 10, 2010 by ballpoint

[jdinasia]

there was a court injunction to clear the way to the school. bingo

how can you say that PAD did not forcefully control the 2 control towers? what's your agenda, proof? It was discussed worldwide. You can even ask foreign airlines who got stuck with their planes at the airport. Low of memory? Maybe an upgrade would help, lol

There are also rules within a democracy and of how to conduct a protest.

Sure you know more than I do in detail, and you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Your argumentation can't stand in front of any court. I am fully aware by the naive arguments of the PAD to justify their crime.

LOL .. I suggest you go back and revisit the control tower issue. 4 people entered (illegally) they did not stay, therefore they did not "forcefully control the control tower". They wanted to know when the PM was landing. Those MAY be the only convictions that come out of the airport mess other than civil cases which I think will pound the PAD leadership into the dark ages financially.

I don't remember a court order about 'clearing the way to the school' ... Can you provide a credible link to verify that claim?

I note you didn't actually answer anything ... please do so before asking questions of me again or I might begin to think that you are one of the folks that make claims .. don't back them up ... and don't respond to questions

[elcent]

@ballpoint - Rohingya

the only thing that's itching is the lack of any sense of justice and that it is going to be ignored away which carries itself a big guilty verdict with it.

[elcent]

@jdinasia

that's what I guessed right, you know more than anybody else, so what could I answer you. At the other hand you play a naive child to test the waters for your buddies.

Maybe you try the airline owners of the airlines who got stuck to find out, no? And you tell us that police vehicles didn't get their tires flattened by armed PAD thugs? Oh I see you wanted to know the arrival time of Thaksin. Ever heard of phones?

[yoshiwara]

Now that the fateful date approaches, the red apologists have thrown off all pretence that the totality of their political posturing is 100% devoted to the defence of Thaksin. Nothing less and nothing more. It is always amusing reading those with a claimed left-wing bias dreaming up justifications for his corrupt activities, tax avoidance scams and dodgy wealth audit trails. I guess 500 baht gets one a nice poodle these days.

[jdinasia]

@jdinasia

that's what I guessed right, you know more than anybody else, so what could I answer you. At the other hand you play a naive child to test the waters for your buddies.

Maybe you try the airline owners of the airlines who got stuck to find out, no? And you tell us that police vehicles didn't get their tires flattened by armed PAD thugs? Oh I see you wanted to know the arrival time of Thaksin. Ever heard of phones?

And again ..... you don't answer a thing. I am beginning to see that I was correct in my assessment. You try and divert but never answer.

PAD Thugs sounds familiar too .... welcome back?

BTW -- it wasn't Thaksin that was PM then ... but I guess you knew that

[ballpoint]

@ballpoint - Rohingya

the only thing that's itching is the lack of any sense of justice and that it is going to be ignored away which carries itself a big guilty verdict with it.

And what would you like me to say? That I support what happened? Well, I definitely do not. The fact that these events happened on Thaksin's watch, as well as Abhisit's, and no one has been held accountable for these and other crimes - a sad state of affairs that goes back many decades, doesn't make it any better. It serves as one of the many examples illustrating just why Thailand has never had a functioning democracy, and has a long way to go. I fail to see how pardoning Thaksin will break this trend though. How will giving him his money back - if found to be acquired illegally, help with this?

For the sake of argument, let me say some things that I really don't agree with, and think are false, namely (what's the bet the next bit is quoted by someone while cutting this disclaimer out?):

Thaksin was the best PM the country has ever had. He did a lot of good for the poor. He was a rich and successful businessman before elected to office. He was wrongly deposed in a coup. His proxy party convincingly won the next election, but was hounded out of office by the military, and a puppet government, with an attrocious human rights record, was installed. Thaksin was put on trial purely due to politics and the envy of the "elite". Now, even if all that were true, which as I say, certainly is not, what comes next? During that trial a number of witnesses, including former employees with no political axe to grind, came forward to testify that he used his position to enrich himself and his family. He changed some laws, he broke some others, he covered up money trails and avoided paying taxes. Now, does the first bit overweigh the last? Should a person's good deeds in the past be considered by a court of law when weighing up evidence against him? I say no. Even if he were as good as some here would have us believe, what he did was wrong and deserves punishment. I'll even go the other way. My considered opinion is that he did far less for the country than he'd have us believe, but even that shouldn't be used against him in this trial, which is about how he managed to increase his money by billions of dollars while in charge. Give one good reason why a full pardon given to Thaksin would help advance democracy in Thailand?

[elcent]

@jdinasia

I can't answer you a thing when you don't ask questions apart of provoking mindless games.

For you to start with, ask yourselves questions and be honest to yourself, then you go to those who were directly involved or victims of PAD's action if you really want to know. Otherwise I suggest to leave it up to the courts to deal with it. The only thing the country needs least is another coup to distract justice again.

Even in Thaksin's case everything was proceeding well and issues would be solved by now in a legal way. There was no need for a coup. Even the coup leader admitted a couple of weeks ago that it was wrong to stage a coup, so what does it mean? Yes, you guessed it right, there was and is no need for the new constitution.

Good luck

I'm getting tired talking to frozen mindsets, it's like when a hard disk hangs in the computer, nothing works.

[animatic]

jd, if memory serves;

prior to PAD moving to Government House and then camping in there,

they had 2 other street protest sites. One was right near a school.

Some of the parents were intimidated a bit, they protested and eventually

an injunction was reached allowing freer, unfettered access to school.

ie PAD move off down the street a bit. Not a big thing, and not unusual

in larger scale protests, and dealing with locals effected by same.

If I remember, PAD was reluctant to move because it was to a less secure emplacement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some one says Abhisit ordered the Rohingas towed off shore,

Sorry never saw that one, except from red propagandists here.

But Samak was the one giving orders with racist content regularly.

Just because Abhisit inherited bad policy from Samak

that Somchai probably was clueless about,

doesn't in any way imply Abhisit gave orders to do the same.

We know the armed forces don't run all actions up the flag pole before they do them.

And Abhisit WAS quoted as putting a stop to this behavior,

once he learned it was happening on his watch.

Edited February 10, 2010 by animatic

[elcent]

@ballpoint

I did understand your post and there was/is no personal thingy attached or intended.

[jdinasia]

@jdinasia

I can't answer you a thing when you don't ask questions apart of provoking mindless games.

For you to start with, ask yourselves questions and be honest to yourself, then you go to those who were directly involved or victims of PAD's action if you really want to know. Otherwise I suggest to leave it up to the courts to deal with it. The only thing the country needs least is another coup to distract justice again.

Even in Thaksin's case everything was proceeding well and issues would be solved by now in a legal way. There was no need for a coup. Even the coup leader admitted a couple of weeks ago that it was wrong to stage a coup, so what does it mean? Yes, you guessed it right, there was and is no need for the new constitution.

Good luck

I'm getting tired talking to frozen mindsets, it's like when a hard disk hangs in the computer, nothing works.

Another typical non-answer.

Yes this thread is about Thaksin ... We discussed Thaksin's version of Democracy. You amongst others brought up the PAD (not rellevant to this thread) You asked me questions. I answered questions. Your questions were phrased from my remarks about Thaksin but were trying to shift focus to the PAD (again not relevant to the discussion at hand) Your never responded to the questions about Thaksin even now after having been asked repeatedly.

You are correct .. you are like a stuck hard-drive

Note --- that was the first even marginal insult I have put into my posts to you even after all of yours

Ani--- Thanks .. I remember people complaining about the school when the PAD was at Gov't house and not before .. (aint the first time in my life I have been wrong)

Ani--- The guy talking about the Rohingya was rainman --- who thinks that the Rohingya have lives more valuable than "drug dealers" --- which conveniently leaves out the fact that many killed in Thaksin's "War on Drugs" had no known ties to drugs at all and were innocent.

[bangon04]

From what I can make out, for the duration of his being Prime Minister, he transferred his shares in Shinawatra Holdings (primarily AIS - which he founded) to his family, because of the obvious conflict of interest whilst holding public office. That's fairly normal for any politician, from whatever country, in a similar situation.

At the time of the subsequent sale of shares to the Singapore Government investment vehicle (Temasek Holdings) for about 73 billion baht, there were many accusations and shouts of selling 'Thai National assets', which of course weren't true as he was legally selling shares in a company that he'd founded himself, and one of his principle advisors in the sale was the Siam Commercial Bank.

The most substantial effect that any adverse ruling against Thaksin in this particular case, would be (at least for me) the adverse reaction from the international business community against doing business in Thailand.

and who actually controls the SCB??

[ballpoint]

From what I can make out, for the duration of his being Prime Minister, he transferred his shares in Shinawatra Holdings (primarily AIS - which he founded) to his family, because of the obvious conflict of interest whilst holding public office. That's fairly normal for any politician, from whatever country, in a similar situation.

At the time of the subsequent sale of shares to the Singapore Government investment vehicle (Temasek Holdings) for about 73 billion baht, there were many accusations and shouts of selling 'Thai National assets', which of course weren't true as he was legally selling shares in a company that he'd founded himself, and one of his principle advisors in the sale was the Siam Commercial Bank.

The most substantial effect that any adverse ruling against Thaksin in this particular case, would be (at least for me) the adverse reaction from the international business community against doing business in Thailand.

I think the current case is concerned more about what he did in office that may have increased the value of those shares, whether held by him or his immediate family. I don't really agree that it's okay to hand the shares over to family, just while your PM, on the expectation you'll get them back again after. It still presents a huge conflict of interest, and I'd like to see what countries would allow it. I also see a conflict between the statements

...he transferred his shares in Shinawatra Holdings (primarily AIS - which he founded) to his family, because of the obvious conflict of interest whilst holding public office...

and

...which of course weren't true as he was legally selling shares in a company that he'd founded himself...

. Either the shares were his to sell, or they belonged to his family and so weren't. You can't have it both ways.

[ballpoint]

I'm getting tired talking to frozen mindsets...

I realise that was not aimed at me, but it is an interesting term. This is not aimed at you, but is some general advice for anyone interested in current Thai politics. Take it or leave it.

If TV had have been around in 2001, and I was a member then, I would have been here arguing firmly on Thaksin’s side. Politics in the ‘90’s, and still to this day to some extent, was tainted by the events leading up to Black May 1992. I suggest that anyone who wasn’t here then read up about it, who the protagonists were, what they were accused of doing, and what happened to them afterwards. Chavalit, Banharn et al were firmly tied up on the side of the baddies, and then bungled their way through economic incompetence in the events leading up to the 1997 crisis. Chuan, and his Democrats, were on the side of good, but stayed away from the front line. When it was over he took the credit and tried to smear the efforts of Chamlong, who was the hero in many people’s eyes. For this reason, I never really trusted the guy. He still led the country twice though, and it was the efforts of his second government that started Thailand out of the 1997 crisis, something Thaksin later claimed credit for. Roll forward to 2001. Thaksin had been a protégé of Chamlong in the latter’s PDP, and was now campaigning under his own banner. Here was a relatively new guy, a billionaire seemingly untainted by any previous events, and recommended by the hero of 1992. He had to be good for the country. I supported him fully. Then, the first stumble – the asset concealment trial, should have been a warning. The second was the names he aligned himself with in parliament – the same Chavalit, Banharn et al crowd of Black May infamy. Big warning. I started looking at how he actually made his money, how he actually managed to win so many seats on his first attempt, and didn’t like what I saw. By the time of his second election win I was firmly in the anti Thaksin camp, not because of how I was personally affected by his policies, but because of who he was, what he had done to get and stay in office, and where it looked like his next steps would take him. Fixed mind? Not a bit of it, and I’d suggest anyone with any interest in Thai politics really do some research into his past, how he conducted himself as PM, and some of the statements and actions he made. Ask yourself why did he do this? What was his intention when saying that? Don’t just rely on hearsay from a bunch of poorly educated supporters of his (and I say that as no derogatory term. To the shame of Thaksin, all before him, and probably all after him for the near future, the poor of the country have been kept poorly educated), or what some ignorant posters who haven’t researched the facts may say on a public forum. If you have any interest in posting on a political topic you should really be looking at the information out there before doing so. If not, you’re going to get caught out by someone who does know what they’re talking about. Maybe you won’t come to the same conclusions as I did. I don’t care if you do or not, but at least you’ll be better educated, and should be able to give reasons for your posts, rather than making broad unsubstantiated statements, and down right lies.

Where are we now? Abhisit in charge. Another untainted by earlier events, although some would try to drag him into it due to his father being chosen to be deputy public health minister by the civilian PM, not an ex general, who was put in power by the military following the 1991 coup. Look it up, make your own conclusion. I say his father served the country honourably, and in any case, it has nothing to do with Abhisit. I remain open minded about Abhisit. I was relieved when he became PM in December 2008. I am disappointed by some, if not many, of his actions, but he is treading a fine line between the military on one side and Thaksin on the other. He has handled most of the big events well, but I admit some have been poorly done. He doesn’t have the shady past, in terms of acquiring money, that Thaksin does. Until someone new pops up, I believe he is the best chance Thailand has at the moment. Again, my opinion only, based on what I’ve seen of him, and the other candidates for the job. If I turn out to be wrong I’ll admit it. I won’t carry on mindlessly praising him as doing no wrong.

Now, this thread is about the current Thaksin trial, and there have been a number of concerted efforts on it to fling accusations at Abhisit, whether true or not, and generally belittle his achievements and exaggerate his failings. I’ll say it again: The trial is about how Thaksin added to his wealth while in power. It’s not about how well he did or didn’t run the country. It’s not about how well Abhisit is or isn’t running the country. Whether Thaksin were the best, or worst, PM Thailand has ever seen doesn’t make a difference to the current trial. If Abhisit were spotted out stealing icecreams from small children before personally rounding up refugees and shooting them, it doesn’t make a difference to the current trial. The increasingly frantic efforts made on TV to praise Thaksin and dam_n Abhisit don’t make a difference to the current trial. Well, I’ve said I’m not fixed minded, maybe someone could come up with a good reason why it should. Until that happens, any attempts to drag up the PAD airport protest, Abhisit’s human rights record, Thaksin’s perceived good works, or anything not specifically related to the current asset trial, on this thread will be seen as a cheap diversionary tactic and, in my opinion, the behaviour of a troll.

[Publicus]

I'm getting tired talking to frozen mindsets...

I realise that was not aimed at me, but it is an interesting term. This is not aimed at you, but is some general advice for anyone interested in current Thai politics. Take it or leave it.

If TV had have been around in 2001, and I was a member then, I would have been here arguing firmly on Thaksin's side. Politics in the '90's, and still to this day to some extent, was tainted by the events leading up to Black May 1992. I suggest that anyone who wasn't here then read up about it, who the protagonists were, what they were accused of doing, and what happened to them afterwards. Chavalit, Banharn et al were firmly tied up on the side of the baddies, and then bungled their way through economic incompetence in the events leading up to the 1997 crisis. Chuan, and his Democrats, were on the side of good, but stayed away from the front line. When it was over he took the credit and tried to smear the efforts of Chamlong, who was the hero in many people's eyes. For this reason, I never really trusted the guy. He still led the country twice though, and it was the efforts of his second government that started Thailand out of the 1997 crisis, something Thaksin later claimed credit for. Roll forward to 2001. Thaksin had been a protégé of Chamlong in the latter's PDP, and was now campaigning under his own banner. Here was a relatively new guy, a billionaire seemingly untainted by any previous events, and recommended by the hero of 1992. He had to be good for the country. I supported him fully. Then, the first stumble – the asset concealment trial, should have been a warning. The second was the names he aligned himself with in parliament – the same Chavalit, Banharn et al crowd of Black May infamy. Big warning. I started looking at how he actually made his money, how he actually managed to win so many seats on his first attempt, and didn't like what I saw. By the time of his second election win I was firmly in the anti Thaksin camp, not because of how I was personally affected by his policies, but because of who he was, what he had done to get and stay in office, and where it looked like his next steps would take him. Fixed mind? Not a bit of it, and I'd suggest anyone with any interest in Thai politics really do some research into his past, how he conducted himself as PM, and some of the statements and actions he made. Ask yourself why did he do this? What was his intention when saying that? Don't just rely on hearsay from a bunch of poorly educated supporters of his (and I say that as no derogatory term. To the shame of Thaksin, all before him, and probably all after him for the near future, the poor of the country have been kept poorly educated), or what some ignorant posters who haven't researched the facts may say on a public forum. If you have any interest in posting on a political topic you should really be looking at the information out there before doing so. If not, you're going to get caught out by someone who does know what they're talking about. Maybe you won't come to the same conclusions as I did. I don't care if you do or not, but at least you'll be better educated, and should be able to give reasons for your posts, rather than making broad unsubstantiated statements, and down right lies.

Where are we now? Abhisit in charge. Another untainted by earlier events, although some would try to drag him into it due to his father being chosen to be deputy public health minister by the civilian PM, not an ex general, who was put in power by the military following the 1991 coup. Look it up, make your own conclusion. I say his father served the country honourably, and in any case, it has nothing to do with Abhisit. I remain open minded about Abhisit. I was relieved when he became PM in December 2008. I am disappointed by some, if not many, of his actions, but he is treading a fine line between the military on one side and Thaksin on the other. He has handled most of the big events well, but I admit some have been poorly done. He doesn't have the shady past, in terms of acquiring money, that Thaksin does. Until someone new pops up, I believe he is the best chance Thailand has at the moment. Again, my opinion only, based on what I've seen of him, and the other candidates for the job. If I turn out to be wrong I'll admit it. I won't carry on mindlessly praising him as doing no wrong.

Now, this thread is about the current Thaksin trial, and there have been a number of concerted efforts on it to fling accusations at Abhisit, whether true or not, and generally belittle his achievements and exaggerate his failings. I'll say it again: The trial is about how Thaksin added to his wealth while in power. It's not about how well he did or didn't run the country. It's not about how well Abhisit is or isn't running the country. Whether Thaksin were the best, or worst, PM Thailand has ever seen doesn't make a difference to the current trial. If Abhisit were spotted out stealing icecreams from small children before personally rounding up refugees and shooting them, it doesn't make a difference to the current trial. The increasingly frantic efforts made on TV to praise Thaksin and dam_n Abhisit don't make a difference to the current trial. Well, I've said I'm not fixed minded, maybe someone could come up with a good reason why it should. Until that happens, any attempts to drag up the PAD airport protest, Abhisit's human rights record, Thaksin's perceived good works, or anything not specifically related to the current asset trial, on this thread will be seen as a cheap diversionary tactic and, in my opinion, the behaviour of a troll.

Would that Pasuk/Baker, who are excellent in so many ways, state it so well, and in so relatively few and incisive words.

As for me, Thaksin the populist never cut it from the beginning. First and foremost, however, Thaksin and the TRT as the Thai response to the financial meltdown of 1997 was always going to be a disaster, as indeed it has been. By a factor to the nth power.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Publicus

[elcent]

in 1992, during, after or just before(I don't remember exactly) the war in the Middle East, the excuse of the army was that they were looking after suspicious Middle Easterners to explain there presence countrywide, while in fact the aim was to stage a coup.

Today we're at a similar setting. Maybe I'm paranoid about this, but the alleged coup as claimed was probably under preparation. Thailand is always like to expect the unexpected when it comes to local political intermingling and a kind of warfare.

The coup in 2006 was completely an out of mind event. There was to much at stake and with partly heavy losses for the country.

Why was there no believe in the justice system? and has it really turned around if it was bad?

Why is it now that government corruption has reached new heights? A friend of mine recently quit the job in a ministry because of extreme corruption, where they were forced to alter reports or lose the job, and was lucky to get another job with another department for just to get appointed as a non savvy internet and OS user to change the OS from MS in the office computers to Ubuntu and of course to keep the MS OS on an partition on the hard disk drive on all computers. It must be really hard to say good bye to messenger. Was there a budget for this and drained into private pockets? Well, who knows.

The other danger of creating a change like in this setting is that people from the opposition will do everything to undermine the govt and therefore create a miserable life for many citizens as it happened after 1992 and after Mr Anand's interims term. There would be much more to say about all this but it would extend the attention span of most here.

While up to the 1992 coup not much was to lose for the Nation, the coup in 2006 destroyed more than one can imagine. Are all the recent corruption issues orchestrated to keep the coups regularly up again? I took the time to read all the wikis about those involved in coups and found it's always the same people involved. In 1992 I was even approached by The Manager's Manager, I got the name card too, lol, with rumors that police just killed a pregnant woman in the police station on Rachadamnoen Nok, so to create outrage amongst the mob. I didn't believe him, but saw the station burnt down and then 4:05am the army was here. Coincidence? Of course the tax revenue building got burnt down with an army truck full of gasoline parked around the corner on a narrow and sometimes busy road months before it happened.

Now back to Thaksin's trial. What to expect? Well, I think it doesn't matter, because the real trouble makers are working hard to create chaos, and these are not the red shirts.

These are my concerns.

Edited February 10, 2010 by elcent

[alstaxi]

A news flash saying they want to seize the funds, not that they have.

Brilliant!

Yes the headline writer is selling crap. thailand to seize thaksins.... turn into aims to seize, then becomes wants to seize, next we will get, probably seize, followed by cannot seize, great reporting.

Edited February 10, 2010 by alstaxi

[bertram]

He was cleared from these engraving violations(extra judical killing) by the courts in Thailand

As far as I remember he was cleared because of lack of evidence.

None of that ever happened.

He was never cleared by the courts.

It was never brought to the courts.

[animatic]

I'm getting tired talking to frozen mindsets...

I realise that was not aimed at me, but it is an interesting term. This is not aimed at you, but is some general advice for anyone interested in current Thai politics. Take it or leave it....

Now, this thread is about the current Thaksin trial, and there have been a number of concerted efforts on it to fling accusations at Abhisit, whether true or not, and generally belittle his achievements and exaggerate his failings. I’ll say it again: The trial is about how Thaksin added to his wealth while in power. It’s not about how well he did or didn’t run the country. It’s not about how well Abhisit is or isn’t running the country. Whether Thaksin were the best, or worst, PM Thailand has ever seen doesn’t make a difference to the current trial. If Abhisit were spotted out stealing icecreams from small children before personally rounding up refugees and shooting them, it doesn’t make a difference to the current trial. The increasingly frantic efforts made on TV to praise Thaksin and dam_n Abhisit don’t make a difference to the current trial. Well, I’ve said I’m not fixed minded, maybe someone could come up with a good reason why it should. Until that happens, any attempts to drag up the PAD airport protest, Abhisit’s human rights record, Thaksin’s perceived good works, or anything not specifically related to the current asset trial, on this thread will be seen as a cheap diversionary tactic and, in my opinion, the behaviour of a troll.

Very good post.

And also what Publicus said about it and P&B.

There is a concerted effort to change the argument, but for naught because

some of us want to be sure the disinformation of obscuration doesn't

overwhelm the truth of the arguments presented by the few.

Makes no difference if the 'papers of record' are perfect,

or if 'other players' in this drama past or present are/were honest.

What matters is what is happening now and how it affects

the future reality for Thais and us. Truth is out there,

and precisely because of the freedom of the press available here,

is it possible, and desired by some, that the waters be muddied

and their side made to look other than what it truly is.

No side is purity and light,

but some sides are of a darker hue than others and no question about that.

Some few believe whole heartedly that THEIR version of reality is the ONLY version,

but that mindset is from absolutism and not from rational thought or the ability to

change beliefs as new information becomes available.

PAD's life cycle being a case in point. Some believe it is only what it was at it's worst act

and no other gray area, while some see it at different times as much different entities.

Same goes for people, they invariably change over time, though some prove only

to change their stripes, and not their teeth or preferred diet...

Same for Thaksin and his clique.

They have both changed, and one must change ones views accordingly.

PAD has become quieter and less aggressive public,

Thakisin side more aggressive and publicly manipulating.

Neither is the same as it was 2-3 years back.

So if your mindset is frozen you only see what you want to.

Some few accuse me of that, but I find, as do several others,

that those accusing are most likely the ones with congealed attitudes and viewpoints.

Life is change, either change with it or be left behind.

One days icons are another days fishwrap on the market floor.

Edited February 11, 2010 by animatic

[travelingmike]

I have been listening around the village and observing up here in khon kaen. The government I believe is being smart-they are distributing money too the poor/farmers and have extended unemployment money. I still see the red signs of thaksin politicians and hear hitler type speeches on television, the red shirt get togethers have been small despite big advertising and red shirt money being spent increasing. Of course thaksin used his position to make money! Many politicians/businessmen do, but as its been said the trial is about thaksin using HIS position to make money for himself.

[scorecard]

I'm getting tired talking to frozen mindsets...

I realise that was not aimed at me, but it is an interesting term. This is not aimed at you, but is some general advice for anyone interested in current Thai politics. Take it or leave it.

If TV had have been around in 2001, and I was a member then, I would have been here arguing firmly on Thaksin’s side. Politics in the ‘90’s, and still to this day to some extent, was tainted by the events leading up to Black May 1992. I suggest that anyone who wasn’t here then read up about it, who the protagonists were, what they were accused of doing, and what happened to them afterwards. Chavalit, Banharn et al were firmly tied up on the side of the baddies, and then bungled their way through economic incompetence in the events leading up to the 1997 crisis. Chuan, and his Democrats, were on the side of good, but stayed away from the front line. When it was over he took the credit and tried to smear the efforts of Chamlong, who was the hero in many people’s eyes. For this reason, I never really trusted the guy. He still led the country twice though, and it was the efforts of his second government that started Thailand out of the 1997 crisis, something Thaksin later claimed credit for. Roll forward to 2001. Thaksin had been a protégé of Chamlong in the latter’s PDP, and was now campaigning under his own banner. Here was a relatively new guy, a billionaire seemingly untainted by any previous events, and recommended by the hero of 1992. He had to be good for the country. I supported him fully. Then, the first stumble – the asset concealment trial, should have been a warning. The second was the names he aligned himself with in parliament – the same Chavalit, Banharn et al crowd of Black May infamy. Big warning. I started looking at how he actually made his money, how he actually managed to win so many seats on his first attempt, and didn’t like what I saw. By the time of his second election win I was firmly in the anti Thaksin camp, not because of how I was personally affected by his policies, but because of who he was, what he had done to get and stay in office, and where it looked like his next steps would take him. Fixed mind? Not a bit of it, and I’d suggest anyone with any interest in Thai politics really do some research into his past, how he conducted himself as PM, and some of the statements and actions he made. Ask yourself why did he do this? What was his intention when saying that? Don’t just rely on hearsay from a bunch of poorly educated supporters of his (and I say that as no derogatory term. To the shame of Thaksin, all before him, and probably all after him for the near future, the poor of the country have been kept poorly educated), or what some ignorant posters who haven’t researched the facts may say on a public forum. If you have any interest in posting on a political topic you should really be looking at the information out there before doing so. If not, you’re going to get caught out by someone who does know what they’re talking about. Maybe you won’t come to the same conclusions as I did. I don’t care if you do or not, but at least you’ll be better educated, and should be able to give reasons for your posts, rather than making broad unsubstantiated statements, and down right lies.

Where are we now? Abhisit in charge. Another untainted by earlier events, although some would try to drag him into it due to his father being chosen to be deputy public health minister by the civilian PM, not an ex general, who was put in power by the military following the 1991 coup. Look it up, make your own conclusion. I say his father served the country honourably, and in any case, it has nothing to do with Abhisit. I remain open minded about Abhisit. I was relieved when he became PM in December 2008. I am disappointed by some, if not many, of his actions, but he is treading a fine line between the military on one side and Thaksin on the other. He has handled most of the big events well, but I admit some have been poorly done. He doesn’t have the shady past, in terms of acquiring money, that Thaksin does. Until someone new pops up, I believe he is the best chance Thailand has at the moment. Again, my opinion only, based on what I’ve seen of him, and the other candidates for the job. If I turn out to be wrong I’ll admit it. I won’t carry on mindlessly praising him as doing no wrong.

Now, this thread is about the current Thaksin trial, and there have been a number of concerted efforts on it to fling accusations at Abhisit, whether true or not, and generally belittle his achievements and exaggerate his failings. I’ll say it again: The trial is about how Thaksin added to his wealth while in power. It’s not about how well he did or didn’t run the country. It’s not about how well Abhisit is or isn’t running the country. Whether Thaksin were the best, or worst, PM Thailand has ever seen doesn’t make a difference to the current trial. If Abhisit were spotted out stealing icecreams from small children before personally rounding up refugees and shooting them, it doesn’t make a difference to the current trial. The increasingly frantic efforts made on TV to praise Thaksin and dam_n Abhisit don’t make a difference to the current trial. Well, I’ve said I’m not fixed minded, maybe someone could come up with a good reason why it should. Until that happens, any attempts to drag up the PAD airport protest, Abhisit’s human rights record, Thaksin’s perceived good works, or anything not specifically related to the current asset trial, on this thread will be seen as a cheap diversionary tactic and, in my opinion, the behaviour of a troll.

I was here working in Thailand well before the 1992 coup and I remember very well being 'sent home' at 11.30am by my then boss, on the day that things started to get very heated and dangerous and then the shootings on the streets happened.

I also made it my business to learn what was going on, the history being it, the longer-term history, who the players were, their objectives, their values, etc.

I agree with all of the summation above.

I add the following, so many contributors on TV see either black or white; your either a red or your a yellow. The reality is that:

- Many people don't really support either group, and

- Many people have sympathies with one of the groups but don't agree with everything that group have said or done.

None of the current parties are squeaky clean, and the botttom line, for me (you may not agree) is that Abhisit and Korn* have the least baggage, they are capable, they have values, and I believe they will eventually turn the corner and be the catalysts for a new era in Thai politics.

By new era I mean, partly, create a scenario whereby the old style politicians (leeches) can't survive. Will it happen next week? No, it will take time.

(* I said Abhisit and Korn, rather then 'the Democrats'. The Dems have got their baggage too, but lets be realistic, Abihsit and Korn must work within a party framework, that's the system. I've, by accident, met both A and K, they are decent people, they are not elitists (whatever elitists means).)

[jdinasia]

Until that happens, any attempts to drag up the PAD airport protest, Abhisit’s human rights record, Thaksin’s perceived good works, or anything not specifically related to the current asset trial, on this thread will be seen as a cheap diversionary tactic and, in my opinion, the behaviour of a troll.

Hmmmm Good conclusion and it is what I was trying to point out but apparently not doing so well at.

[h90]

He was cleared from these engraving violations(extra judical killing) by the courts in Thailand

As far as I remember he was cleared because of lack of evidence.

None of that ever happened.

He was never cleared by the courts.

It was never brought to the courts.

you are right..... never brought to the courts and can't because he is on the run...there are a lot other cases pending as well.

lack of evidence is a bad joke when 3000 people died. It is simply impossible to murder 3000 people without evidence.....

[hanssna]

Wow.. 2.2 billion dollar to divide! Cool.. lets all equally divide it between all the thai people and the farang around here in thailand, we can all go for a good bottle of drink from it, say cheers and 'chon kuad' to thaksin and the goverment, and whoever.. sleep it out, and forget all the trouble!!

[Samuian]

The biggest Joke and slap in the face of the judiciary is the his kids and wife claim now that it is all THEIR money!

How did they make this incredible amount in such a short time, how?

It wasn't any "Bill Gates, Steve Jobs Phenomena" of the recent past.... his "carrier"

is already quite impressive, from a hapless Projectionist to a PhD in Law on some Texas University, from a cop to Colonel Lieutenant of the Police Force....and then from 0 to 76 Billion.... in almost no time!

And then all of a sudden his gardener, driver, nanny, secretary, kiddies,yes it was soo much- where to put this all?

And then all had this incredible amount of shares.... was it Pathongta who "paid" 1 Baht for 46 Baht worth shares.... and "Daddy" said: "how can I charge my son the full amount?" (or something like it) not to mention tax evasion in the "sale", not to emntion the asset concealment, not to mention "honest mistakes"!

Fishy, incredibly fishy - it's so obvious!

And at one time when the judges decided by ONE vote in HIS favor, the judicary of Thailand was some "Institution one can trust"!

ti's not fishy.... this guy and the whole comedy instigated by him, not fishy, all clean?

Or is it about the "others" the "elite" who doesn't want "to let him..."

Where are we in a Opera written and directed by Mr.Thaksin in "his" Oper House, on "HIS stage" with his rules?

Edited February 11, 2010 by Samuian

[yoshiwara]

The biggest Joke and slap in the face of the judiciary is the his kids and wife claim now that it is all THEIR money!

How did they make this incredible amount in such a short time, how?

It wasn't any "Bill Gates, Steve Jobs Phenomena" of the recent past.... his "carrier"

is already quite impressive, from a hapless Projectionist to a PhD in Law on some Texas University, from a cop to Colonel Lieutenant of the Police Force....and then from 0 to 76 Billion.... in almost no time!

And then all of a sudden his gardener, driver, nanny, secretary, kiddies,yes it was soo much- where to put this all?

And then all had this incredible amount of shares.... was it Pathongta who "paid" 1 Baht for 46 Baht worth shares.... and "Daddy" said: "how can I charge my son the full amount?" (or something like it) not to mention tax evasion in the "sale", not to emntion the asset concealment, not to mention "honest mistakes"!

Fishy, incredibly fishy - it's so obvious!

And at one time when the judges decided by ONE vote in HIS favor, the judicary of Thailand was some "Institution one can trust"!

ti's not fishy.... this guy and the whole comedy instigated by him, not fishy, all clean?

Or is it about the "others" the "elite" who doesn't want "to let him..."

Where are we in a Opera written and directed by Mr.Thaksin in "his" Oper House, on "HIS stage" with his rules?

Since the above is not in the prepared red script, the Thaksin apologists would rather talk about something else thank you very much.

[Samuian]

The biggest Joke and slap in the face of the judiciary is the his kids and wife claim now that it is all THEIR money!

How did they make this incredible amount in such a short time, how?

It wasn't any "Bill Gates, Steve Jobs Phenomena" of the recent past.... his "carrier"

is already quite impressive, from a hapless Projectionist to a PhD in Law on some Texas University, from a cop to Colonel Lieutenant of the Police Force....and then from 0 to 76 Billion.... in almost no time!

And then all of a sudden his gardener, driver, nanny, secretary, kiddies,yes it was soo much- where to put this all?

And then all had this incredible amount of shares.... was it Pathongta who "paid" 1 Baht for 46 Baht worth shares.... and "Daddy" said: "how can I charge my son the full amount?" (or something like it) not to mention tax evasion in the "sale", not to emntion the asset concealment, not to mention "honest mistakes"!

Fishy, incredibly fishy - it's so obvious!

And at one time when the judges decided by ONE vote in HIS favor, the judicary of Thailand was some "Institution one can trust"!

ti's not fishy.... this guy and the whole comedy instigated by him, not fishy, all clean?

Or is it about the "others" the "elite" who doesn't want "to let him..."

Where are we in a Opera written and directed by Mr.Thaksin in "his" Oper House, on "HIS stage" with his rules?

Since the above is not in the prepared red script, the Thaksin apologists would rather talk about something else thank you very much.

No Problem - my pleasure!

Well, beside this, see Post #256 and #257.... what more to say... just add why Sondhi and his former Mentor 1st hand supporter Chamlong Srimuang, as many not so well known and unknown others turned against Mr.Thaksin's ever more selfish authoritarian rule and to get it his way he started to accept f.E. that at least one member of his Party, think she was even 2nd or Party leader, was nicknamed Ms.20% alias Ms.Sudarat, which escaped with family in the "judgment days" to Singapore and then to Paris, why would she run away?

Not to mention the "hot shots" ballpoint mentioned already in his entourage....

And what were the reasons for banning all these politicians - all "fabricated" accusations - if it was so, why isn't there a tsunami of court cases regarding this "unfair & biased ban" as in his heydays he was suing each and anyone who came into his tracks..?

How could an honest man accept this, this alone?

And then look who Chamlong is..... and the writing is clearly readable on the walls all over Thailand!

Why isn't anyone out there arguing this with soem facts -

a.) XXXXXXXXXXX

b.) XXXXXXXXXXX

c.) XXXXXXXXXX

d.) XXXXXXXXXXX

e.) XXXXXXXXXX

e.1) XYZ....

e.2) VXYZA/....

?????????????????????????????????

Like a proper defense, let me gues... because...

Edited February 11, 2010 by Samuian

[boris52]

Hopefully the courts do the right thing and return the money or portions of the money to their rightful owners.

[ballpoint]

Hopefully the courts do the right thing and return the money or portions of the money to their rightful owners.

I actually agree with you for once. I suspect we disagree as to who the rightful owners are though.